Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)

Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 01 Jun 2026 15 Jun 2026
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 2 June 2026
Motion name Date posted
Contentious topic changes 27 May 2026

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Staraction at 18:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Staraction

Over at WP:BATCH, Sean.hoyland has requested extended-confirmed protection for some templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict. Protection for some of the pages requested was previously declined by Toadspike since they were not articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area [emphasis added]. Subsequent discussion revealed disagreement between several administrators regarding whether relevant templates fell under the extended confirmed restriction, with a general sense of ambiguity (Pppery, Toadspike, rsjaffe).

TL;DR: Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed restriction?

I concur with Toadspike & rsjaffe below in that I worded this last line incorrectly, apologies. It should read: "Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed protection by default remedy? [emphasis added] Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I've added template transclusion counts to the request for convenience/consideration. Note that the counts will be 1 less than the transclusion counts from 'What links here' because I've excluded the template talk pages from the counts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toadspike

My comment here summarizes my perspective. Staraction's question isn't quite correct: It's obvious that templates fall under the extended-confirmed restriction; the real question is whether they fall under the ECP by default remedy. I have no opinion on whether they should, I'd just like clear guidance either way. Toadspike [Talk] 18:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

Statement by Rsjaffe

The question I'd like answered is slightly different: should templates strictly within the A-I topic area be ECP by default?

The committee decided that All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. However, if you look at the votes and discussion at that link, you see arguments that appear just as applicable to templates as to articles. This makes me wonder if the scope of the remedy was insufficient as written. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

@Toadspike: Regardless of whether or not they are mandated for ECP by default (which the consensus of arbs seems to be "not"), the fact of the matter is that ECR, when an entire page (regardless of namespace) falls within the topic and thus the entire page falls under ECR, is de facto ECP, as no non-XC editor is allowed to edit the page; applying the protection is simply changing that to de jure. IMHO there's no reason to ever not ECP a page that falls fully within an ECR topic area. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Contentious topic changes


These four motions would amend the contentious topics procedure by:

They are open for comments before voting. Your thoughts are welcome in § Community discussion :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic changes: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Draft motion: Replacing awareness with warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

If an administrator believes that an editor does not know that they are editing in a contentious topic or are unfamiliar with what that means, they should be warned instead of restricted unless the disruption is egregious.

To conform with these changes:

  • Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
  • The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
  • Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
  • Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
  • Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

    1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

    All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

  • Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

    13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

  • Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
  • Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

Note: The various remedy amendments remove references to awareness in its various forms, which sometimes entailed more broad rewrites of the remedies. For the e-cig case, the CT was rescinded a while ago, so these companion remedies are just terminated.

To give a history of what became WP:AWARE: When "discretionary sanctions", the predecessor of the contentious topics framework, was created, Newyorkbrad sagely suggested that it was only fair to provide editors with warnings before imposing sanctions on them. That common-sense suggestion morphed into a complicated set of "awareness criteria" and frequent arguments about who is or isn't "officially aware". (See Newyorkbrad's story.)

By replacing out complicated set of criteria with a requirement to consider an unlogged, informal warning, I think we can decrease the number of restrictions which prove necessary. Bear with me.

There is a tendency to consider the {{alert}} notifications to be sufficient warning. That is a completely understandable thought process, because ArbCom has instructed admins on many occasions (1, 2, 3) that once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

However, the text of the alert doesn't mention any particular behavior and even expressly states it does not imply there are issues with their editing. It is not, by any reasonable definition, a warning. By requiring actual warnings before sanctioning, editors will be given a real chance to improve their behavior before being hit with the banhammer. I am confident that this will lead to more nuanced judgements from administrators in heated areas while also cutting red tape. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this to use SFR's wording (with some slight tweaks). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal needs a bit more wordsmithing. We have this if-then construct but then drop an unless on it after, which is convoluted at best.

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

? Izno (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's any more or less clear which is the only thing I'm concerned about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion: Repeated warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

The goal here is to reduce the revolving door of editors receiving multiple "final" warnings. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine but otoh I think admins already do that. Mightn't there be a stronger framing (that could get a consensus behind it)? Izno (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my AE experience it's often not the case. Stronger framing could work, but I don't think it would really change anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if they're not doing it I honestly don't see how adding this sentence helps, and if they are doing it this is creep. Izno (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My (perhaps naïve) hope is that admins advocating for sanctions (cough SFR cough) can point to this as Official ArbCom Guidance in AE threads. I'll think some more on Levivich's idea below. For what it's worth, this is the proposal I feel least strongly about. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings? It sets a simple rule while acknowledging that there might be compelling reasons to deviate from it. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Levivich, Izno, and ScottishFinnishRadish for their thoughts. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It still comes down to admin judgement. I would support it, but I don't think it'll have much effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better framing than the original above. Still sitting on the commentary below. Izno (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion: Eliminating renewal

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

Renewal has literally never been used and solves the non-existent problem of "what if an admin removes a restriction while a page is still hot". CREEP at its finest.

If a page is continually a problem, a better solution is to start a thread at AE, which can consider custom and no-unilateral-revocation-ever arbitration enforcement actions. AE also draws additional admin eyeballs to the page. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so would AE page protections just be limited to a year now? What if an admin does want to reup AE procedural protections on a page protection? Would they just be able to do that as a reprotection? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, this doesn't change that admins can issue indefinite page restrictions. Renewal is a convoluted process whereby admins can take an indefinite page restriction and declare that, for the next year, you still have to go through the formal appeals process to change it. An admin wouldn't be able to re-up AE protections without going through AE (just like with user restrictions). Going through AE has the aforementioned benefits, but I think drawing additional eyeballs is the most important one. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
right, sorry, should've been clearer about page protections vs. procedural protections on page protections. I think it ends up adding creep as it takes away to say that a page that has been AE protected needs to get a consensus of admins to reüp. I'd favor either (1) just letting AE protections remain indefinitely, which should already be the case for, say, protections in service of ECR, or (2) doing away with the distinction between renewal and protection and simply replacing the whole thing a line like "an admin may reprotect an already-protected page as an AE action in order to reapply AE procedures." theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note page restrictions, not page protections. See WP:STANDARDSET.
I was originally thinking this motion might be reasonable but reading the section I'm kind of in the boat of "well, we really should say to admins that they can individually reapply a restriction where necessary". I agree that AE is additional overhead when an issue may be easily dealt with by protection. Izno (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose (1)—that used to be the case, and it was actually one of the big changes in WP:CT2022, because pages protected 10 years ago couldn't be unprotected without jumping through hoops. I'd support (2) as a second choice, because I'd take a simpler procedure over a complex one. That being said, I think it is worth noting that in the three years since WP:CT2022, zero admins have felt the need to re-up anything. What problem does re-upping solve? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be formally using the framing of renewal in the log but that doesn't mean they aren't renewing page restrictions. Did you account for that in your review? Izno (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible that I missed something, but I looked at every entry that (1) mentioning the string renew, (2) mentioning re-imposing or re-protecting something, or (3) was a "reply" to another log entry (which is how changes are normally denoted). Given the ubiquity of replying to log entries to note updates—there's plenty of examples of, for example, using that notation when extending a temporary protection to indefinite—I'd be quite surprised if this search failed to find renewals that were happening. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought through the implications and conclude that this motion is fine to vote on. Izno (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a copy-edit to avoid framing CTOPAPPEALS as an exception (AE consensus) which itself has an exception (site-wide blocks). I believe this is non-controversial. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion: Consider banner blindness

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by inserting the following as a final sentence in the second paragraph: Editors should consider the hidden cost of banner blindness when placing contentious topic page notices, especially if a page has no active restrictions.

A Wikipedia article with nine maintenance banners
This looks ridiculous—but it's exactly what we do to talk pages

We give too many big shouty messages on talk pages. Each one decreases the chance that editors will actually notice the important ones. Rather than a multi-step test (looks at awareness) to determine what constitutes too many banners, this change simply requires that editors use their best judgement and consider banner blindness before adding notices. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I prefer leaving off CT banners and editnotices when there aren't active restrictions, I do think there "should generally" be a banner for active restrictions (not including page protection). A banner for active page restrictions seems to me among the "important ones". ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is fair; removed. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold that it's valuable to have the talk page clutter and also the edit notice. Izno (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been persuaded by SilverLocust and isaacl, but I can see why others think differently. Therefore, I've split that change into a separate motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to address this to administrators, as the former paragraph does. I also don't think it needs to be a separate paragraph. Izno (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When there are no active restrictions, talk page notices can be placed by non-admins. I think you're right about a new paragraph; I have amended the wording. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion: Soften language surrounding talk page banners

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by replacing and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages with and may add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

This is what was originally in the above banner blindness motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions

  • My suggestion when HB was drafting this was to just remove awareness and add a single line that says, more or less, If an administrator believes that the editor is unaware they are editing in a CTOP or unaware of what that means the editor should be warned before sanctioning unless the disruption is egregious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

  • I don't blame the committee for wanting to get rid of AWARE. However, the text of the motion is completely incongruous, for me, with the section name of "Replacing awareness with warnings". It's an absolute directive to consider an unlogged informal warning as the outcome in all situations, not just in the situations previously covered by an unaware editor. I also don't know how to square the second motion on repeated warnings with that motion on giving more informal warnings. Substantively I, on the whole, find the no repeated warnings order reasonable for ArbCom to give knowing that a future ArbCom might give an opposite order; it is healthy for some ArbComs to be more willing to sanction than others. I support the third and fourth motions around renewals and banner blindness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. One, how do the changes to AWARE square the circle of "an editor who is very disruptive in CT and needs sanctioning, but has never been made aware or warned"? Is it still bad form to simply go straight to an AE block? Secondly...in the fourth one. The image used to illustrate "banner blindness on talk pages"...is not of a talk page. It's banners that go on an article, which if it existed would be very silly certainly, but doesn't illustrate the actual point at all IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious about the first question too because from what House Blaster wrote in the section heading and explanation the answer would be "still bad form" but the actual policy people would read seems to give admins carte blanche. I think Arbs would have been better off changing Standard of review to say the policy version of "An editor truly oblivious to CT would be a good reason to accept an appeal for anything that's not a warning". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To your first point, the intention is that someone who is engaging in behavior that shouldn't require a warning, admins would be permitted to use CT tools to address that disruption. I'm open to suggestions to make that intention more clear, and I'd support something like SFR's text. To your second point, I'm saying that we all recognize that it looks silly on an article, but it's what we do to our talk pages. See, e.g., Talk:Tandon v. Newsom, which has seven banners. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Concur with Bkeep that this is... not as clear as it claims to be. Regarding banner blindness, I'd suggest that we have a procedural order of templates and CTOPS-related templates always display first in any case, I don't see a way to avoid banner blindness apart from just... less banners and then it leads to a whole can of worms as to how we can achieve that; I'd argue that a reminder to think about it does not help since we're already aware and do think of it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors considering less banners is absolutely a positive, in my view. I'll gently push back on we're already aware and do think of it—discussions about adding CT banners are always about whether an article is in scope, not about whether a banner would be helpful. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish:, I think your wording above is incredibly clear and would make things a lot simpler for everybody. I suppose there is an argument that an administrator could maliciously claim they believed someone was aware in order to issue a sanction unfairly, but I like to have faith in my fellow administrators (plus, I think anyone who obviously did that would be swiftly dealt with through their own sanction) so it's not something I'm especially concerned about. CoconutOctopus talk 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a huge improvement over the current motion. I would just suggest using oblivious or some other synonym for unaware just to make the break with the past clearer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unfamiliar"? I think you are right that avoiding the term "aware" is a good idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfamiliar works well as a term in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad of the proposal to get rid of awareness. The current system can be too rigid at times. Sometimes when folks are disruptive, I want to gently guide them towards behaving properly with tailored messages instead of hitting them with a big template that implies they are not disruptive. If they double down instead of listening, going through the motions of then making them aware and then going to AE, is bureaucratic. For other types of sanctions we don't make people aware either, and escalate as appropriate. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • re the BLP DS reminder Editors are reminded that "living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" is a designated contentious topic. is absolutely horrible phrasing that I had to read two or three times to properly parse. I think something like Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (or "biographical articles and other biographical content...") would be much easier to read and understand. I realise this would require rewording the designation on the actual CT authorisation as well but, (a) you're already amending things anyway, and (b) the change would be a positive readability improvement there too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine amending the scope of the CT, though I think that's beyond the scope of a motion about awareness. Would Editors are reminded that there is a contentious topic designation for biographies of living people be better? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I personally understand living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles", it parses to [living or recently deceased people] + [that are the subject of biographical content] + [in a Wikipedia article], i.e. any biographical content in any article, as long as the subject of biographical content—not necessarily of the article—is living or recently deceased. Thryduulf's suggestion parses to mostly the same but in a more intuitively understandable way. In so far as there's a scope change implied in it, it's that it no longer restricts things to articles (which imo wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because BLP vios on talk pages or in redirect titles aren't exactly welcome either, but yeah that would need formal adjusting I suppose), but that could be fixed by adjusting his suggestion to either Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people in Wikipedia articles" is designated a contentious topic or Editors are reminded that "biographical content in Wikipedia articles relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (struck, see Thryduulf's reply below)
    Your suggestion to me reads as "articles that specifically are biographies of living people", which is a substantially narrower scope. It's possible that that's the scope actually intended by the currently existing phrasing, but if so the phrasing is even more horrible than it seems on first glance, because that's not what it actually says. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your (AddWittyNameHere's) two suggestions are not the same imo. The first covers [biographical content about living or recently deceased people] in [any Wikipedia article] while the second covers [all biographical content] in [Wikipedia articles about living or recently deceased people].
    HouseBlaster's phrasing could be read as applying to (all content) in (biographical articles about living people), or it could be read as a simple pointer to the (unchanged) designation elsewhere. The latter would avoid any issues of conflicting scopes if the designation changes in the future (c.f. the mess that The Troubles got into) but would not (by itself) resolve the parsing issues noted. That change may actually be better handled as a completely separate motion though to ensure it attracts the attention of the editors interested in that CT who might not care about awareness details. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm...upon rereading, you're quite right that my two suggestions can be read differently with 'relating to' in the second one much more likely read as referring to the clause immediately before it ("Wikipedia articles') than to 'biographical content'. Not sure how I missed that, but glad you caught it and pointed it out. Consider my suggestions struck. And concur fixing the underlying phrasing issue in the designation tiself might be better dealt with in a separate motion. AddWittyNameHere 11:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I think amending CT/BLP is beyond the scope of this process, though I agree its wording could be massively improved.

    The first sentence is meant to be a pointer, so maybe say that explicitly? Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022). The second sentence is the important part of the remedy, which was written as "admins should use this if named parties continue to cause disruption", not a general reminder. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, making it an explicit pointer resolves this issue (although it's worth looking at the designation separately, maybe after these motions are resolved). I'd phrase it as something like Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation authorised in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. as I find that easier to read than a URL. The link is deliberately to WP:NEWBLP on the thinking that if the section is renamed or superceded by a new motion, the shortcut will be retargetted to wherever the current authorisation is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone with that, but using the word "from" rather than "authorised in". Avoiding the word "authorised" was actually one of the changes during WP:CT2022. (Not that I understand why that was changed... but it was.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tone down the WP:AWARE replacement to "Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators should consider whether an informal, unlogged warning or regular administrative action would be sufficient" - no emphasis, and "should" instead of "must". I feel that going must consider is a contradiction - you'd be setting this ironclad, scary, all-bold requirement to... consider the alternative? And, what, if I can demonstrate that an administrator didn't even consider any alternatives, that would be grounds for appeal, or even sanctions against them because of the big scary "must?" The fact is that this leaves it up to administrative discretion, and there's no getting around it - I feel that leaving in the big scary bold must would just result in some weird appeals from people who want to read it as an entitlement to an initial warning (which it clearly isn't, given the "consider.") "Should" is the sort of wording we use on lots of other policies; administrators are experienced enough to understand that it's a very strong admonition as to what the general best practices is. must consider just reads weirdly in a way that would lead to odd interpretations and appeals - at the end of the day, either you're leaving it up to administrator discretion or you aren't. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding Aquillion's point. "Must consider" is the formulation used at WP:BLPCRIME and in practice it works really poorly. It's unenforceable and unreviewable -- all someone has to do to comply is say they considered it. This works as guidance ("should consider," as in the fourth item), but not as an enforceable rule.
    A common way of handling this sort of situation is to set a default, and then require a specific, articulated rationale for varying from the default.
    So for #1 it could be "must give a warning for first offense unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, 'no warning -- serious violations of TOS -- death threats')."
    For #2 it could be "must give only one warning unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, '2nd warning because they promptly self-reverted')."
    That would at least give something to review when reviewing the admin's decision to vary from the default. Other two motions look good. Levivich (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @HouseBlaster: I agree the "should normally impose" language is better than "should give serious consideration". I still think that both formulations are superficial in that they state (IMO) universally-accepted principles without addressing the difficult exceptions. I think if you ask 100 admins, all 100 will tell you that warnings should normally be given for a first offense, and subsequent offenses should normally result in restrictions not just further warnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, and like Izno and SFR, I don't think arbcom stating this is going to make a difference to anyone. The more difficult question is when should an admin depart from this normal procedure, and that doesn't seem to be a question that any of the draft motions are addressing. I would suggest, if arbcom wants to give guidance to admins, then give guidance, don't just say what everyone already knows is true, but give like new information that's not something everyone already knows/agrees with. I think one helpful bit of new guidance is, as I mention above, requiring admins to document the reasons for departing from the norm. Another possible path is to give examples of when departures from the norm should happen, although I could see arbcom not wanting to do that for fear of micromanaging. (I'm not sure if I'd consider it micromanaging or not.) Hth, Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the distinction between logged and unlogged warnings is unhelpful. As I see it, the point of warning an editor is to let them know that their behavior is disruptive and they should change course. The point of logging the warning is to alert other admins that the editor has already been warned, so they can consider that if the disruption continues. Having different tiers of warnings that escalate from "informal" to "logged" is just bizarre; a warning is a warning, and all warnings in arbitration enforcement should be logged. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One big difference is that only admins can log warnings in the enforcement log, but anyone can give an informal warning. (And one of the reasons that only uninvolved admins can log their warnings is that non-admins' warnings have a decent change of being inappropriate.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stated previously that I think the audience for awareness messages (either on article talk pages or user talk pages) is fairly narrow: editors who are aware that the standard set of restrictions can't ordinarily be applied by a single administrator on their own initiative, and so are willing to engage in actions that pushes the boundaries of disruptive behaviour. I think it's beneficial for the community to progress towards a base assumption that editors are expected to behave collaboratively, whether or not restrictions can be imposed upon them by a single administrator or a community discussion. After many years of authorization of discretionary sanctions/contentious topics designations, I think by now the community is generally comfortable with admins imposing restrictions to curb disruption in highly disputed areas. Thus I think it's appropriate to transition away from the formal concept of awareness to reduce complexity. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the proposal to amend Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings, I agree that editors generally should be warned about their behaviour before being restricted. But I don't think it's necessary that editors be warned that they are editing in a designated contentious topic area before they are restricted. Typically, editors who have been warned about their behaviour and continue to behave poorly to the degree that an admin is about to sanction them are aware that they are being disruptive. I'm not sympathetic that they didn't alter their behaviour because they didn't know certain types of restrictions could be imposed upon them by a single admin. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why the new phrasing calls out egregious disruption. If something has to be done it can be, but if they're clearly unaware of the stakes and a warning might work that should be the tack. I also expect editors, in the face of disruption, will let someone know about CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understood that's the tack you are proposing. I just have a different view on the course to set. isaacl (talk)
    As a rough analogy, if someone is acting disruptively in public, the appropriate authorities can take action, even if the person doesn't know the jurisdiction in which their current location falls. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this comment regarding pages with specific restrictions in force: personally I think editors should be able to know what restrictions are in effect before trying to edit the page. Thus I think it's good to have both a talk page banner and an edit notice. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already have new editors snap at me all the time when I place the existing CT notices, demanding that I explain why I am threatening them with a "warning template". We definitely still need a no-fault-notice level of CT awareness. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the formal awareness requirement (thus removing the need to use a specific template) in favour of allowing any wording to serve as notification provides flexibility to craft a gently worded message, tailored for the specific editor. I feel this should provide more options to inform new editors in a non-confrontational way. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I misread the motion at first glance, thanks for the clarification. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{welcome-ctsa}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, contentious topic notifications have always been (mild) warnings. Sometimes when a mild warning seemed not enough, I added a note below them like "Contrary to the message above, this notification does come in response to issues with your editing." But even without that text: If you send someone a message whose only two effects are allowing sanctions for the account from now on, and letting the user know that they need to be careful, that is a warning. Sending them without any concerns about the user's conduct has always been a rare and unfriendly-looking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

Shortcuts

This page is used to report:

Appeals of user and page restrictions imposed under the CTOP or GS procedures may also be submitted here. Any other problems, including content disagreements, should be directed to other dispute resolution venues. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Before participating here, please note:

  • Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests.
  • Comments must address only the conduct of the user being reported or the filer. Enforcement against other users must be requested by creating a separate AE report (unless an uninvolved administrator has given permission).
  • Statements may be made only in individual sections and are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. Extensions can be requested on the talk page.
  • Administrators have broad discretion in moderating AE threads to enforce behavioral and procedural requirements. They may, among other things, shorten, collapse, or remove comments; restrict participation in a section; and issue blocks to prevent disruptive participation.


Quick enforcement requests

Shortcut

ECP protection for Antisemitism in Canada

Non-ECP users and temporary users are taking umbrage to references to Gaza Genocide in the article and are trying to wikilawyer about how this dispute should not be considered part of the CTOP. As we're dealing with a lot of TAs, making them aware and addressing any individual issues at AE would probably be a big waste of time. ECP protection might be wise at both the page and its associated talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article was subsequently semi-protected for four days by @Yue: in what looks like a regular admin action. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edittttor

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Edittttor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
EaglesFan37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Edittttor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 3/23/2026 Added the following text to Donovan McKinney's article: In November 2023, McKinney joined two dozen other lawmakers, including State House Majority Leader Abraham Aiyash, in sending a letter to President Joe Biden to urge him to advance "a lasting ceasefire" in the Gaza war. The letter urged "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, the adherence of all international laws, and aid to ensure that every person living in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank can live with self-determination, dignity and humanity."[1]
  2. 3/31/2026 Created Wikipedia Article on Adam Hamawy, with large portions of the article covering Hamawy's service as a doctor in the Gaza Strip in 2024
  3. 4/27/2026 Added the following text to Ala Stanford's article: Stanford has denied taking AIPAC money during her campaign, but the organization has supported her with more than $2.6 million routed through a Super PAC.[2]
  4. 4/29/2026 Further edited information related to AIPAC on Ala Stanford's article
  5. 5/3/2026 Created article on William Lawrence, included the following text: He has also sharply criticized the United States' involvement in the 2026 Iran war and support for Israel in the Gaza war, which he has called a genocide.[9][10][1]
  6. 5/10/2026 Expanded redirect for Waleed Shahid into an article. Waleed Shahid was the co-founder of the Uncommitted movement, as Editor wrote in the article In 2023, Shahid co-founded the Uncommitted movement, a protest campaign with the goal of pressuring the United States government to achieve a ceasefire in the Gaza war. He acted as the group's senior advisor.[6][10]
  7. 5/13/2026 Changed war that emerged between Israel and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in gaza from the October 7 attacks to Gaza genocide,
  8. 5/14/2026 Added citation for the following article text In March 2025, during an interview with Katie Halper, Cross referred to the state of Israel as "corrupt" and an "apartheid state.

References

  1. ↑ Rahal, Sarah (23 November 2023). "25 Michigan lawmakers urge Biden to 'advance a lasting ceasefire'". Detroit News. Retrieved 22 March 2026.
  2. ↑ Grim, Ryan; Andreone, Julian (27 April 2026). "Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia". Drop Site. Retrieved 27 April 2026.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 2/20/2026 Warned for ECR Violations
  2. 3/9/2026 ECR Removed for gaming/continued ECR violations pre-ECR
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

See linked sanctions above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Edittttor has repeatedly violated ECR after being previously warned at AE multiple times. Not only that, in the Adam Hamawy article, they displayed WP:OWN behavior to the extent that it received news coverage and devolved into what another editor described as "edit warring"

If any administrators need me to clarify/expand any of my diffs, please ping me. I will not be engaging with this filing request again due to Edittttor's repeated tendency to accuse me or other users of conduct violations when they disagree with them and for repeated WP:GASLIGHT in past AE threads I've been involved in with them.

@Sennecaster The user in question was already aware that they were not supposed to edit PIA content in articles, regardless of protection or not. . EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even during this arbitration case, the user in question is still editing ECR content (added sentence about Mahmoud Khalil (who is ECR protected) in reference to his detention (also an ECR protected subject). EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through the prior context. @Edittttor's clarification makes sense (not sure why the Mahmoud Khalil stuff seemed like a new addition in the diff). Still not sure why you were requesting the restoration of an article with ECR content you added (although in fairness, a lot of the ECR content presently on the article was added by an ECR user today) to your user space. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Edittttor

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Edittttor

Edittttor's statement contains 517 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

I have to share some history here. I have informed EaglesFan37 that I felt they were WP:WIKIHOUNDING me many times 1,2, 3,4 5 for following me across pages to disagree with me in discussions, reverting my edits, submitting several of pages I created for deletion, and reporting only me for the ECR violation that got my rights revoked when there were multiple editors in the conversation. Since the enforcement, I have avoided interacting with EaglesFan37. I have stayed away from pages EaglesFan37 was editing. I have edited areas which I felt were not close to ECR topics. This is the third time they have brought a enforcement request against me (one closed no action). This is harassment. I have made it clear for months that I do not want to interact with them. Now they make new allegations of gaslighting...

Their descriptions above are misleading. The news coverage is a fringe source that complained editors had removed a guilt-by-association attack in a BLP, when in reality we were still reaching consensus around the wording on the talk page because WP:THEREISNORUSH. My contribution to that conversation was the one that reached consensus and remains in the article now. The edit-warring accusation came from someone who agreed to the consensus and went back on it.

As for the enforcement complaint, I have never edited an ECP article. Diff #7 I reverted vandalism by a TA. #8 are not my words so I don't know why they posted them as if they were, I resolved a WP:CITENEED tag while gnoming. #1,#4,#5,#6 are BLP for American politicians/activists that are notable for things not at all related to any ECR topic. #3/#4 are references to AIPAC, which advocates on issues besides I/P and I only mentioned their campaign contributions. Are campaign contributions I/P? I wouldn't think so. I can see how #2 is considered a violation. I created the article because I read about their relationship saving the life of my senator and thought I would be leaving out context if I didn't mention their role as a crisis doctor. In hindsight I should have just skipped that part of their bio and let another editor add that in. The article is neutrally written and unanimously survived an AFD, so I don't think this was disruptive editing.

I didn't think my edits were a violation, especially after seeing the "rough consensus of admins" here that "extended confirmed restrictions are intended to prevent disruption by making sockpuppetry harder and by giving editors necessary experience before they edit a contentious topic." That conversation happened literally right above my enforcement ruling, so I was using that as a guide of what is and is not acceptable for me to do. I thought my minor edits fit the description of gnoming, I do not think any edits have been disruptive, and I avoided ECP pages, so I thought I was fine. An admin literally says "EC restriction is to: 1. Give new users a chance to realize there might be things they need to familiarize themselves with before they get themselves in trouble in a highly contentious topic 2. Reduce disruption because new users haven't realized the above 3. Reduce socking." This is what I was following. Asilvering told me yesterday this interpretation was incorrect. Edittttor (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another misrepresentation. This resulted from merge of drafts. See WP:HISTMERGE request.. Also, is it an accurate interpretation of policy that any mention of a person is off-limits if part of their life deals with PIA? Edittttor (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency. Edittttor (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edittttor

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Toadspike said at the last AE thread that blocking would be the next step. The Bushranger above said that Adam Hamawy was full of ECR violations. I was the one that closed with the ECR warning originally, so I won't close this one out of fairness. Edittttor, your interpretation was indeed incorrect, and I'm glad that has been corrected, and at the barest minimum going forward you need to keep this in mind. I haven't evaluated the dispute between the two parties. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geremia

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Geremia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Edittttor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Geremia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Geremia_topic-banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 13 May 2026 - First edit to BLP of individual whose lead says Terry founded the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue. Beginning in 1987, the group became particularly prominent for blockading the entrances to abortion clinics; Terry led the group until 1991. Also added a link to an anti-abortion website.
  2. 13 May 2026 - Added link to that same BLP article to LifeSiteNews, a deprecated source for an advocacy website that's Wikipage says: LifeSiteNews was founded in 1997 by the Canadian political lobbyist organization Campaign Life Coalition with the intent to promote anti-abortion views.
  3. 13 May 2026 - Minor edit of same BLP article
  4. 13 May 2026 - Added second link to the same anti-abortion website to same BLP article
  5. 13 May 2026 - Minor edit of same BLP article
  6. 14 May 2026 - Minor edit of same BLP article
  7. 19 May 2026 - Edit of same BLP article
  8. 19 May 2026 - Edit of same BLP article
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 19 April 2012 One month ban for skirting TBAN
  2. 28 November 2011 Received TBAN from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.
  3. 10 September 2011 1 week ban for trying to evade the previous block using IPs
  4. 5 September 2011 24-hour block renewed for violating 1RR rule on abortion talk page
  5. 5 September 2011 24-hour block for violating 1RR rule on abortion page
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Came across this user after looking at this list here.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Geremia's talk page

Discussion concerning Geremia

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Geremia

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Geremia

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Valjean

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Valjean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Contentious topic designation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 23 November 2021 Their response when I called them out for stealth canvassing via email about Russiagate, just to demonstrate how long this has been going on.
  2. 23 May 2026 Casting aspersions over pee tape disagreement.
  3. 28 May 2026 Casting aspersions, including a whole mass of fermented grievances and falsehoods from a PROFRINGE editor who thinks Trump can do no wrong, that all of our articles that document Russiagate matters (and how the Russians did interfere and Trump knew about it and cooperated) are all wrong, and that any criticism of Trump, no matter how well sourced, needs to be deleted. That's the kind of shit, thrown at the wall in case some part sticks, we're dealing with in the now-closed MfD, and because "some" of it "seems" to stick (and upon further examination often falls apart, but I'm not allowed to debunk it because that's "bludgeoning"), "that" part is then seen to validate the whole pile of crap and the votes are then "delete".
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations - Pee tape MFD after they moved it to mainspace, moved it back to user space. Significant bludgeoning, editors provided evidence of BLP violations/SYNTH, they cast aspersions including Their criticisms show gross ignorance of the topic, MAGA tendencies, and evidence they have not examined the sources. There's a whole lot going on at that MfD.
  5. 24 May 2026 BLP violating addition of pee tape stuff to Cover-up based on an opinion piece and two sources that don't mention a cover-up
  6. 26 May 2026 More pee tape userspace stuff
  7. 28 May 2026 - me laying out the BLP issues with just a sliver of their editing at Steele dossier which they've inflated by over 20,000 words.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018#c-Coffee-2018-01-29T03:09:00.000Z-American_politics_2 - Blocked a week for civility violations 28 Jan 2018
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019#c-Awilley-2019-04-14T20:15:00.000Z-American_politics_2 - Subject to a one year no personal comments sanction on 14 April 2019
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 19 January 2024
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  ScottishFinnishRadish's statement contains 483 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

They have been pushing a POV for years dealing with Trump, Russia, and urine for years. While doing so they violate NPOV, BLP, SYNTH, and a bunch of other acronyms while casting aspersions against any editors they disagree with. Their enormous output makes it near impossible to repair the damage caused, as one editor at the MfD put it, It's also taken 750+ words and more than an hour's work to explain how these sources have been synthesised to form a compound claim which is not directly supported by any of them. For one claim in one sentence. It is not reasonable to expect the community to have to expend the effort required to do this across the whole 25,000+ words of this draft. This is the same problem with the 28000+ word Steele dossier. This is disruptive, eats up huge amounts of community time, and needs to stop.

Even now they continue to cast aspersions. Barkeep49, do you see that topic ban covering the 16, 20, and 24 elections? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, here's another example from Steele dossier.
The source does not provide the timeline for Before the Crossfire Hurrican team received dossier material on September 19, 2016 and the prose attempts to downplay the effect of the Steele dossier on the FISA warrants issued. At some point [this primary source was used used to WP:SYNTHesize this claim (wikiblame can't find the diff), so instead of being unsourced it's synthesis, still dealing with a BLP. Valean also added it to Carter Page's article including the unsourced timing and with a completely synthesized summary, In summary, the dossier formed a "smart part"[63] of the evidence, "not the majority",[109] yet, like the proverbial "last drop", it was just what was needed to push them "over the line"[66] to make that decision. That's how it "played a central role"[66] in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page. That section is 500 words of the 3780 word article, or about 13% of the article on a BLP for Valjean to use synthesis to prove their point about the dossier. In the Steele dossier article it is under the heading Conspiracy theories and claims about dossier subheading Claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application, both headings added by Valjean, despite what they wrote in their synthesized summary at Carter Page.
This took over an hour to look at one line from one article, and then discover that it's actually multiple articles and worse than I originally expected. There's about 27500 words in Steele dossier I haven't looked at yet.
Barkeep49, would a normally construed Trump topic ban cover the Steele dossier's role on the FISA warrants on Carter Page? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Valjean

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Valjean

Valjean's statement contains 1090 words and is within 10% of the 1000-word limit.
Green tick Extension granted to 1000 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

.

Start with the "three questions", then "short" version". For even more evidence and RS content, read the "long" version. The whole page doesn't take more than five minutes to read. I have nearly 400 mainstream RS just on this topic. The entire pre-dossier history has not been documented in one place. The sources are scattered, but still reliable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFR, I have no interest in that topic. While the infamous "pee tape" or "Moscow tape" rumor/allegation says "pee", the allegation does not claim that Trump was sexually or physically involved with the prostitutes. I have explicitly made that clear in my writings. The allegation just says that he instructed and watched them pee on the bed.
That is not a topic that interests me or that I dwell on. I only cite what RS say, and anytime I mention synonyms is when describing the common name of the alibi rumor. That's what RS do, so don't blame me for citing them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tamzin, that looks pretty awful when you leave out the many RS that document those words. At least be fair and provide the sourcing, because you are attributing to me what I have cited from RS.
The Fringe theories noticeboard is the right venue. The experts there will look at my sourcing. If I have consistently misused sources, then this may indeed be a behavioral issue, but that has not been established at the right venue first. I am always willing to alter my sourcing and wording when a discussion indicates I should. I do not edit war.
It's easy to prove a case when the foundational evidence has not been examined first.
Three simple and short questions can easily determine whether this is fringe or not, and you seem to have rejected even looking at them. (I'll bet you won't even allow that they be mentioned.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tamzin: A quote used by Tamzin misrepresents me. It starts with: "The night of November 8-9, before the pageant..." That content contained sourcing to justify that wording, and it should be included. Only then can we see if I goofed or not. Tamzin wrote it was a "conspiracy-theorizing passage", but with the sourcing, it's a factual description backed by sources. I'll be happy to provide the sourcing if it doesn't count too much against my word count. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stikkyy 1: Thanks for providing the backing for the content: "describe the alibi as "phony", "false", "fake", and "a total fabrication"." Such attributed content is normally allowed. I did not misuse the sources, and they are good ones. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stikkyy 2: You ask about "make the assertion, in wikivoice, that: "Trump lied repeatedly about the ..." Fair question. I am not sure where you are getting that quote, but in my now deleted article, that is properly sourced. It is also properly sourced on the Alibi page above, but is possibly worded a bit differently, but the sources are there for every bit of it.
I'd be happy to source it for you, because I do not invent shit or conspiracy theories. Everyone knows I have always been one of the staunchest opposers of them at Wikipedia.
Also, whether something is due or not is a matter of editorial judgment, and I welcome other's opinions and revise content accordingly. I'm very easy to work with. This example would have to be judged in the larger context in which it is used. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stikkyy 3: Thanks for adding the diff. That content has one specific source for the quote. It has two notes with many RS that document the rest. In other spots, I add the attribution for the quote. I may have gotten tired of adding it many times. Sorry about that. The Alibi page is much more carefully written, even though it isn't an article, but written for TTAC, who has chosen not to respond. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stikkyy 4: TTAC's non-response started before their block, and history tells me they will likely never respond. If it wasn't about Trump, they would respond quickly. There's is a historical pattern here, and I am not going to keep trying to get them to try to understand the matter. When someone doesn't want to know, there is no point trying to teach them. Just three little questions on the Alibi page resolve this whole thing. It's that simple. It's very simple logic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ScottishFinnishRadish and AndreJustAndre: The Steele dossier content about the FISA warrants can be edited. Anyone can edit it, and it can also be discussed on the talk page. This stuff is what we always do. Only if I had edit warred over it and kept it against a consensus would there be a behavioral problem. The article is right there, so go for it! I am one of myriad editors here who doesn't always get it right and does not get sanctioned for such imperfections. That's why articles start out imperfect, and they are improved over time. I welcome information that improves our knowledge base and my understanding. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth: Thanks for bringing this edit to my attention. I don't recall how that happened, but it's based on the historical record in RS, so I goofed up there by not including the sourcing. I'll take a look at the situation and try to rectify it. Fair enough? - -Valjean (talk) (PING me)
  • PAUSE: I am not in a place where I can stand talking about this much more right now. The pressure is unhealthy. My aspie traits are not helping, and I'm running out of words, while my critics can, cumulatively, just pile on with many more words while I have one hand tied behind my back. It's overwhelming. I would like to take a break from this board for a few days, and I hope my critics won't take advantage of that. Some normal editing will help, such as fixing the above issues mentioned by Ealdgyth. The sourcing exists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRECEDURAL QUESTION: (I can delete this after it is answered.) How should I reply to unevidenced accusations that place words in my mouth that actually come from RS? An accusation should be accompanied by evidence. Am I allowed to debunk it, or are false/misleading statements just allowed to stand there and poisong the well against me? The answer determines whether this is a fair proceeding or a kangaroo court. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

  Tamzin's statement contains 286 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

(Disclaimer: I suggested SFR file this because I didn't have the time. If that seems contradictory with the following post, see q:Blaise Pascal § Quotes #2.)

After making my comment at the MfD I became convinced that a TBAN is needed, based on Valjean's subsequent comments. As I and others said at the MfD, the idea that there's more to write on Wikipedia about the pee tape rumor is not, itself, problematic; it might even be correct. But the way Valjean talks about the subject is pure conspiracy-theorizing. For all I know he's right about the core of the matter; that's beside the point and not our job to figure out. What is very clear, though, is that he wants to use Wikipedia to publish persuasive writing making the case that the rumor is true. That was pretty obvious in the draft, and it's very obvious in the MfD. I particularly noted It was already a public secret in Russia, and Trump and a small circle around him have known about it for about three years before Steele wrote his dossier, and during the writing of the dossier, that circle's efforts to suppress the rumor finally succeeded, unlike some other Trump coverups and payoffs that occurred right before the election. Several were exposed. Trump really got pissed off at Steele. Their suppression efforts had finally "stopped" the tapes (and Trump's people did not write "alleged" before that claim) at the last moment, and here Steele wrote about what had been a secret that Trump thought he had just buried. No wonder he cannot drop the subject.

There are other behavioral issues at the MfD, but those may be remediable with a warning. What doesn't seem likely to change is Valjean's inability to determine what is and is not a BLP violation regarding Trump. The new "False alibi" page has similar conspiracy-theorizing passages like The night of November 8-9, before the pageant, when the offered prostitutes should appear at his room, was the only time Trump was provably in Moscow for the full night, in his room part of the night, and with some time not fully accounted for.

We've all seen this kind of writing before, on subjects like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination. A big dump of sources that don't actually say X (and may even say the opposite of X), cited piecemeal to synthesize X. If an editor can't recognize that that's what they're doing, a TBAN is the minimum outcome likely to prevent disruption. Definitely from Trump, more likely from all of AMPOL. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please respond to Carrite's personal attack? Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndreJustAndre

  AndreJustAndre's statement contains 492 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Forgive me if this is AEPR'd and I'll delete this. You could say I've been friendly with Valjean and an anti-Trump person by ideology and actions, but there are things we don't agree on. Increasingly these days, I myself find no home in many left wing groups. But I digress. The important thing is to edit and behave neutrally and civilly, which by and large I believe Valjean does. Mainly I want to observe 1) WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, so I'm not very sympathetic to this WP:CRYBLP about a topic and person that has been copiously written about and addressed in many formal ways. 2) Thoughtcrime is not a thing, only behavioral and editing crimes. Valjean has always been willing to collaborate and take feedback. He and many others may believe in the pee tape being real, with good reason, but he's not written that per se. I also don't see the wisdom of deleting userspace drafts. 3) There are real gray areas about how to handle cases like this editorially or what level of detail is appropriate or what sources may be cited for what, and it's not a red line. In my experience there are also editors who would feel comfortable removing a lot of sourced material in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Personally I think tbanning Valjean would be harmful because there are many articles where editors have argued fringe points, such as the Durham special counsel investigation or Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States. I see Valjean as a voice of reason and mounting a defense of reliable material. Is there also a fringe left? Absolutely. But in my experience if you have sources and a reasonable logical argument, Valjean will collaborate and cooperate. Andre🚐 19:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here's a nonpartisan fact-check of the idea that the Steele Dossier triggered the FBI investigation (it didn't) and which would corroborate the idea that it formed an important but not majority of the FISA package (per McCabe): And this in my mind is a fairly subtle point. If the argument is, Valjean was reading between the lines too much in citing primary sources such as the office of inspector general report, I bet he himself would admit that. But is he an off the map conspiracy theorist here? No, broadly, he is aligned with the Schiff Memo and what McCabe says. Andre🚐 00:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable that the pound of flesh thing is a PA if directed at Tamzin. I hope it wasn't, though, and I assume in good faith that is just a general turn of phrase, but maybe worth clarifying or removing/striking. Andre🚐 22:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking through the RSP archives to see if Lawfare is considered a reliable outlet, which there well may be a case that it is. I do not know but I wouldn't assume it isn't. It is not just any old random personal blog, as it has a board, internal editoral mechanisms, etc. Andre🚐 23:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stikkyy

  Stikkyy's statement contains 487 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

That is not a topic that interests me or that I dwell on. Almost all of Valjean's edits in the past ten years have been devoted to Trump's relationship to Russia.

That's what RS tell us. They also describe the alibi as "phony", "false", "fake", and "a total fabrication". Assuming that User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi is where Valjean is getting this information from:

If I have consistently misused sources, then this may indeed be a behavioral issue, but that has not been established at the right venue first. In the MfD: Me, Rotary Engine, and TheTimesAreAChanging have all raised concerns about the use of sources and source-text integrity. Although the article has been deleted, here's the state of the pee tape article as I first encountered it, when it was being nominated(!) at DYK. ScottishFinnishRadish has raised very similiar concerns for the Steele dossier article on WP:BLPN#Steele dossier/"Golden Showers" Show in Las Vegas. I think that it's clear that there's a gulf between Valjean and the community with regards to what sources can be used, and how they can be used for allegations against a BLP.

As I've said on Valjean's talk page, it is clear that he has a great deal of enthusiasm for the topic, but I do not believe that Wikipedia, a WP:TERTIARY source, is the best conduit for his writings. Stikkyy (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Valjean): Indeed, if it is determined WP:DUE, then the opinions of columnists may be cited, if properly attributed. However, are the opinion columns up above sufficent to make the assertion, in wikivoice, that: Trump lied repeatedly about the rumor, and his alibi was debunked and described as "phony".[47][f] These lies have been described as an expression of his "consciousness of guilt".[m]? Stikkyy (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Valjean 2): Come on man, is a Youtube video by the The Young Turks a BLP-compliant RS for the note Trump's repeated lies and debunked "phony alibi", a note that gets called upon 11 times to back a wide array of disparate claims? You already had Schreckinger cited, so my only idea for why you would add it is to WP:CITEBLOAT the claim. Stikkyy (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TTAC is currently blocked, which is probably why he can't respond. Stikkyy (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Ealdgyth): , citation [317]. Stikkyy (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Tryptofish): My understanding is that the improper use of sources, especially when it runs afoul of our WP:BLP policies, is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Valjean's edits since the MfD was closed, at User:Valjean/Sandbox/FullListPTapeRefs (which duplicates the references from the pee tape article) and User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi (which still uses the CAP, primary documents (Rtskhiladze v. Mueller, Memorandum Opinion), and an WP:UNDUE reliance on opinion pieces), does not convince me that he gets the locus of the problem. Stikkyy (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Valjean 3): Yes, articles may be corrected by others, but it is unreasonable for your edits to have to be chaperoned. As I noted in the MfD, I would have never come across your mainspaced pee tape article if you hadn't nominated it for DYK, and since you're autopatrolled, NPP wouldn't have caught it either. Stikkyy (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

  Tryptofish's statement contains 428 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

An awful lot of this is over content issues that do not belong at AE, so I'm going to try to focus carefully on conduct.

To understand this dispute, uninvolved admins should look first at the edit summary in this edit: . Another editor calls Valjean WP:NOTHERE. In response to that editor being blocked for that, SFR posted this: . SFR has a bit of a point, to the extent that Valjean has a somewhat single-minded editing interest in the topic area and has had a history of WP:SYNTH in writing content critical of Trump.

But is Valjean engaging in disruptive conduct? Here are Valjean's responses to criticisms of his writing, over recent days: , indicating that he has no intention of recreating the page just deleted at MfD, intending instead to work with advice from other editors. And , his response to SFR at BLPN, "It was a stupid and careless error that it happened at all. As I promised in the MfD, I would never try to use that draft to create an article like it again... SFR, I really appreciate and take seriously your examination of the issues you mention. That kind of criticism and analysis from a mainstream experienced editor, whom I really respect, goes much further than a whole mass of fermented grievances and falsehoods from a PROFRINGE editor who thinks Trump can do no wrong...". Diffs of Valjean edit warring over such content: there aren't any. Of him refusing to listen to advice about content and exerting WP:OWNership: none, either.

So what's the disruptive conduct this AE is intended to forestall? Just some bad content choices, followed by contrition and an express willingness to accept constructive criticism. Valjean is keeping a userspace list of sources, but there is zero evidence that he is going to use these sources disruptively, going forward.

AE has a two-party rule. SFR is engaged in a debate with Valjean over this content at another website: , "Does anyone actually think this would blackmail Trump?" Not a good look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

, , . And please note: .

Excluding noise, the evidence presented here boils down to two kinds of legitimate concerns: serious problems with WP:SYNTH, and excessive verbosity in content and talk replies – along with legitimate evidence of remorse and intent to refrain from disruption. Instead of trying to figure out how to restrict by topic area, admins should consider options based on namespace or conduct, such as no new page creation (or restriction to talk pages within topic area) or no badgering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

Statement by Carrite

The offending userspace piece has been recently deleted. Unfortunately, some (Personal attack removed) people still want their pound of flesh.

Leave Valjean alone. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

  Robert McClenon's statement contains 432 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I probably should say something, since I recommended that any issues about Valjean's conduct be brought here rather than trying to address them at content boards. User:TheTimesAreAChanging had filed a complaint at the biographies of living persons noticeboard that the article on the Steele dossier by User:Valjean was too long. TTAAC's report, at more than 1600 words, was itself too long to read. I said that the dispute should be filed here because the administrators here do a good job of extracting useful information and actionable knowledge from large volumes of data, and the case involves both American politics and biographies of living persons. I agree with SFR that the filibustering and bludgeoning by Valjean is disruptive, eats up huge amounts of community time, and needs to stop. I expect to be pulling together another 300 or so words in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may have first become aware of concerns about Valjean's editing in July 2024 with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32, which ended with No Consensus, and is now named User:Valjean/Rumor. I became aware that Valjean has been engaging in article ownership. As the nominator noted: Editors should not use Wikipedia for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss. Please also note the strange history at in which Valjean repeatedly blanks the page, deleting approximately 370,000 bytes, and then adds the content again.

One of the more recent disputes about Valjean's editing was the MFD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. I was initially uncertain whether the page should be kept or deleted, until Valjean continued bludgeoning, and I changed my vote to Delete. That user page had been an article until it was userfied by an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. I initially did not vote, but expressed my displeasure and concern that Valjean was repeatedly deleting approximately 370,000 bytes (blanking the article) and then adding the same 370,000 bytes (the same behavior as described above). He expressed concerns about bad faith editors, but it was difficult to see a good faith reason for that (anti)pattern. (That behavior is no longer visible in that copy except to administrators, because that copy has been deleted, but it can still be seen in the history of the Rumor page.)

Valjean is not only engaged in battlefield editing, but he is engaged in battlefield editing about something that is of marginal importance to the topic of Donald J. Trump, who has made American politics into a battlefield. I think that it is time to impose a broad topic-ban rather than a narrow one, and topic-ban this editor from Donald Trump, broadly construed, and the Steele dossier, broadly construed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Riposte97

Statement by Samuelshraga

Valjean improperly reverted a BLPREMOVE on Vinay Prasad.

There is a consensus that Science-Based Medicine should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs due to SPS concerns. I saw material I viewed as BLPSPS at that page and raised it on talk, then eventually went ahead with the BLPREMOVE (which I described it as both on talk and in an edit summary).

Valjean reverted me with a very aggressive edit summary. They also responded on talk. It's clear from their response that they don't understand BLPREMOVE and where the burden is for restoring the removed content. They also (I think) assumed bad faith pretty hard: Don't whitewash the article. Carrying water for fringe POV is a really bad thing, and we don't allow that here. Though I had made abundantly clear that I had no issue with critical material of the person or his views from appropriate sources. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

I am grateful to ScottishFinnishRadish for filing this request, which I think was long overdue. ScottishFinnishRadish, Stikkyy, and Tamzin have laid out the evidence of Valjean's long-term pattern of tendentious editing in this topic area better than I would have been able to myself, so I don't have anything to add on that front.

However, with regard to the suggestion of putting the proceedings on hold in order to allow Valjean (who has already exceeded his extended word limit) a mental health break, while I share the community's concern for Valjean's well-being, I do not believe that a delay would serve either Valjean or the encyclopedia.

As I've laid out in fuller detail here, Valjean has for years invoked various mental health crises when his edits have been challenged or faced scrutiny at forums such as AE or MfD (see Valjean's response to the aforementioned April 2019 AE sanction here and Valjean's response to a September 2023 MfD here, the latter of which included notable personal attacks on Beeblebrox (and here), who had to warn Valjean to stop the "harassment and emotional manipulation."

AE is a stressful experience for anyone, and I don't doubt that Valjean is going through a difficult time, but if the evidence presented above shows (as I believe it does) that Valjean is engaged in long-term tendentious editing and creating a huge timesink for the community, then we have to consider the interests of the community and the encyclopedia, and not just the needs or wants of an individual editor.

My point is not specific to Valjean: If a user is going through physical or mental health episodes that make editing and communication especially difficult or stressful, we should recognize that Wikipedia editing—particularly in the most contentious topic areas (e.g., AP2 and BLPs)—is not an absolute necessity for life.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

I happened to be browsing today and I saw I was pinged here. SFR appears to have done a fairly thorough job presenting their case, I probably don't have much to add that you don't already know, but I would remind the committee that there are private concerns known to the committee to be considered here. I can elaborate by email if it's not already been discussed. my bad, I forgot the committee isn't really involved with AE. I definiently do not think a self-requested block is a sufficient solution to the years of poor behavior from this user. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Good point. I guess I'm a little rusty. As we can't openly discuss what I'm referring to and also can't share privately with non-functionaries that bit can be ignored. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 01:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Valjean

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm going to go ahead and say this now - Valjean - the aside to SFR about whether to use "urine" or "pee" is useless for this board. You can't control what other editors write and it's not at all helpful to the admins (and quite frankly, is helpful to SFR's case more than your own side). Just a suggestion, but you're already up against the word limit, and I'd be unlikely to grant extensions given how poorly the current word limit is being used. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Valjean, using phrases like "determines whether this is a fair proceeding or a kangaroo court" is yet again not helpful. You need to not focus on the other editors and focus on showing that your editing is not a problem. Accusing the admins at this noticeboard of being part of a kangaroo court is, yes, casting aspersions. So right there, we're looking at behavior problems. I strongly strongly STRONGLY suggest striking that. (The fact that I'm trying to HELP you should prove that it's not a kangaroo court.) And the totally unneeded bit about word choice is still there, hint - removing it will help your case also. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I don't think the comment can be removed because it has been replied to. However, it could be struck or collapsed (while continuing to count towards Valjean's 1000 words). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I should be out of here, but I'm going to try to head this off before it turns into a mammoth AE filing from Hades.
    This edit summary is not great - it's definitely a borderline aspersion, but in isolation probably not worth a warning.
    This comment is ... bad. And it's not at all helpful to call other editors these things.
    this edit is sourced to something from the WaPo with the url saying "blog", a NYT opinion piece that does not contain the words "cover" or "cover-up" in it, and a columnist in Vanity Fair that I cannot access fully, but does not mention "cover-up" in the first paragraphs that I can see.
    This post by SFR has a number of points, I dipped into one - the "Steele believes 70–90 percent of the dossier is accurate,[71] a view shared by Simpson" point. I find SFR's comment to be accurate - the NYT article clearly says "an estimate that Mr. Simpson is said to embrace himself". This does not support saying that "a view shared by Simpson" in wikivoice. The source is equivocating about "said to embrace", not "an estimate that Mr. Simpson embraces". This is made clearer because the source says earlier that Simpson was not interviewed, but merely answered a few emailed questions.
    What I would like to see from editors weighing in here are clear diffs-and explanations with the diffs-detailing cases where Valjean cast aspersions, violated BLP, misrepresented sources, used sources unsuitable for BLPs, and any other problematical editing relating to Trump and US politics. For those weighing in to support Valjean, please provide diffs and examples, not just "testimonials". It doesn't help admins here if you just say "I think Valjean's a great editor" in a lot of words. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stikkyy: - here you accuse Valjean of using a YouTube video as a source but you don't give details. Instead of engaging with Valjean in a back and forth, could you instead just give the diffs of the actual edits and an explanation and address it to the admins, please? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at SFR's further data:
    This edit "Before the Crossfire Hurrican team received dossier material on September 19, 2016" is sourced to this blog (which is a problem in itself) but it does not contain any information stating anything about September 19. There are only two mentions of September in the blog post - one a general statement in a quote, and the second a mention of September 9 in another quote. Nor is "Crossfire" mentioned at all in the blog. The addition of this to Carter Page's article is also problematic.
    While looking at this particular edit, I also noted "The following sources and the historical timeline show the Republicans' claims are false." being added to the two articles - this is a concerning addition, especially as it is not sourced at all. This appears to be Valjean's own synthesis from the following paragraphs, and not something from any source. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Ealdgyth and I are on the same page once again. Valjean I've gone ahead and proactively given you 500 extra words. I would suggest you use them exclusively for replying to uninvolved admins (and perhaps only to questions from uninvolved admins) as I'm also going to likely oppose any further extension. My initial read of the evidence suggests that a stop at the FRINGE noticeboard is unnecessary as we have consensus around this topic in a few places, including recently at MFD. I am going throw out a suggestion of a topic ban on Trump normally (that is not broadly) construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valjean something along the lines of The words in [[Special:Diff/XXXX|this diff]] were actually from <source &='' name=''> should be sufficient. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish I would see him as able to edit nearly all of Joe Biden but likely not 2020 United States presidential election or 2024 United States presidential election. I was trying to propose a topic ban narrower than all of post-1992 American Politics and since the violations are all centered around Trump, that was my best effort. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Trypto: WP:AEPR is default for some topic areas but is not - to my knowledge - the default in American Politics. I will look into your diffs more, and as you know I am willing to change my mind, but I suggested my topic ban because of concerns about Valjean meeting the expectations of editing with-in a contentious topic based on the evidence provided and some of the conduct here. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any opinion about the suggestions made so far. This note is merely to say I have just now placed a week-long self-requested block on Valjean, with talkpage access removed. Compare this comment above from Valjean. I hope admins are prepared to put this discussion on pause during Valjean's absence, as am I, but that, of course, is up to them. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC).[reply]
    Normally I would agree. But he is out of words after being warned about it by 2 admins and the heat of this is already high from other participants such that I'm not sure a pause actually would be either kind or productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a narrow tban, appealable at any time, would thread the needle of allowing vj time away, allow closing here to prevent this from continuing to increase in size/heat, and prevent vj from simply quietly returning without addressing the issue? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not comfortable with a narrow topic ban (such as from Steele dossier) with no limit on an appeal. I'm concerned that Valjean has a blind spot regarding some aspects of modern US politics, as well as some issues with recognizing good source use for Wikipedia in that topic area - the editing at Carter Page or Cover-up is concerning. In all honesty, I'm not sure it is in Valjean's best interest to allow them to edit in topic areas that they obviously feel so passionately about that it is causing them such distress. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the outcome you think appropriate @Ealdgyth? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the minimum I would support is a topic ban from Donald Trump related topics, broadly construed. This would include things like the Steele dossier, Spygate (conspiracy theory), etc. I could also support a topic ban from the whole Ampol CT. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the disruption is not the entirity of AMPOL and would prefer to start smaller than that. While I prefer something smaller than Trump broadly construed if there's agreement for it I can support that. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Beeblebrox didn't notice that we are at WP:AE and not a place like WP:ARCA. As such most responding administrators do not have access to the information referenced by him. While I do have access to what he references, I do not think it necessary when considering this request and don't think it is such that it requires referral to ArbCom to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NeboRadar

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning NeboRadar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Joko2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
NeboRadar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 29 May 2026 No mention of the article subject, unsourced addition (Ukrainian far-right leader)
  2. 28 March 2026, largely authored Nation Europa (organization) (presented as a pan-European far-right syndicate based in Ukraine) which was deleted in April 2026 for being entirely synthesised and failing verification (hoping administrators can access these?): , nothing on the "group"'s ideology supported by the sources; , disingenuously replaced a blog source with an irrelevant RS (this material contained an accusation against a Ukrainian intelligence service).
  3. 12 March 2026 Addition of several sources with no mention of the subject, tendentious editing, BLP violation (pro-Ukrainian reporter)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12 February 2026 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Repeated tendentious synthesis despite a warning on 13 March 2026 and an ANI I brought on 28 March that wasn't brief enough to be considered. Today I took this to another ANI before being informed this was the more appropriate place for it. All these edits are on the subject of Ukraine and far-right politics (a common anti-Ukrainian propaganda narrative), with repeated verification failures most seriously entailing the expansion of a hoax article from a stub. I believe the user edits on the basis of WP:TRUTH rather than acting entirely in bad faith, nevertheless this ought to be unacceptable for a contentious topic. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NeboRadar's defense-- this is clear WP:TRUTH, which I informed them of on 28 March 2026. They're not leading with the sources, I think a preventative topic ban is necessary. Joko2468 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse @Vanamonde93, thank you for your time and my apologies. 28 March 2026 was actually to demonstrate that they had made "sizable" contributions to Nation Europa (organization) in case administrators couldn't access the deleted material-- these contributions were prior to the warning, I should have made that clear. I thought the Nation Europa affair was quite severe and, for me at least, this editor is out of rope (were you able to access the deleted diffs?)
  • 29 May 2026 is supposed to be regarding the reburial of Andriy Melnyk but the cited source makes no mention of him. It is instead used to shoehorn in a paragraph on the controversy about Zelenksyy naming a unit after the UPA (Melnyk's rivals during WWII, regarding an association with Heroes of the UPA) and the Polish fallout. On a less serious note the material on Bandera is in fact present in the source cited to the previous sentence but NeboRadar paraphrased "Vereshchuk declined to answer whether a reinterment of Stepan Bandera is being planned" to The government refused to answer whether the repatriation of Stepan Bandera was also planned (Banderite is a Russian propaganda term for the post-2014 Ukrainian government and this is a very sensitive subject). This appears to me a tendentious representation of the source.
Joko2468 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93, the edit on Melnyk was made at 12:20 UTC and the TVP article they cite in their defense was apparently published at 14:34 UTC (right click, view page source, and ctrl+f for "datePublished"). This appears to have been original synthesis. Joko2468 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, there's from before the edit which mentions it tangenitally at the end. It's very possible there's more in other languages. Joko2468 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Vanamonde93. Joko2468 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NeboRadar, I'm happy with that, best of luck with your future edits. Joko2468 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning NeboRadar

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by NeboRadar

NeboRadar's statement contains 646 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

1. For the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andriy_Melnyk_%28officer%29&diff=1356720163&oldid=1356718844

I added: "The government refused to answer whether the repatriation of Stepan Bandera was also planned." This is mentioned in the article linked in the previous line "Vereshchuk declined to answer whether a reinterment of Stepan Bandera is being planned.", originally reported by Interfax-Ukraine: "At the same time, the speakers avoided answering whether Stepan Bandera is planned to be reburied."

I then added "The reburial as well as Zelensky's decision to name the Independent Special Operations Center "North" after the Heros of the UPA provoked outrage in Poland." Perhaps the source used in that case was not the best example, but I do dispute the idea that this is tendentious synthesis. Generally, it just needed a better source, rather than its removal by Joko2468 entirely. Here is what the Polish TVP world is reporting, which was clearly the context in which I was adding the message - ie. "The reburial forms part of a broader effort". : "Zelenskyy signed the decree on May 26, describing it as a measure to restore “the historic traditions of the national army” and recognise the unit’s role in defending Ukraine’s independence.

The decision, however, comes amid a broader effort by the presidential administration and political elites to elevate nationalist symbols and historical figures that have become more prominent in Ukraine’s wartime narrative.

A day earlier, Zelenskyy attended the reburial of Andriy Melnyk, a wartime nationalist leader whose remains were repatriated from Luxembourg, telling mourners that Melnyk had “returned to a different Ukraine.”

https://tvpworld.com/93536957/zelenskyy-upa-decree-sparks-poland-ukraine-dispute

2. Yeah happy to concede on that one, although the claim that an ideology video published by an account directly shared by members of the group was "AI slop" itself seems tendentious.

3. For the following 12 March 2026 Addition of several sources with no mention of the subject, tendentious editing, BLP violation (pro-Ukrainian reporter)

Caolan Robertson, for the sources I added: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/its-ok-to-be-white-anti-immigration-activist-lauren-southern-in-australia/kniv7ic5j - Robertson is directly mentioned here "Ms Southern's tour producer Caolan Robertson on Friday said" https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350590444/powerstation-vandalised-after-cancelling-lauren-southern-and-stefan-molyneux-event - An video interview with Robertson is at the top of this article. https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/08/03/hope-nz-enjoys-shariah-alt-right-speakers-agent-responds-to-having-their-auckland-event-at-the-powerstation-cancelled-last-minute/ - Robertson is directly mentioned here: "In light of the cancelled appearance, Southern's agent Caolan Robertson sent a message to the NZ Herald over Twitter saying "Hope New Zealand enjoys shariah".

I also added these two sources for a statement regarding the russian state response to Robertson entering the Kursk region. Previously, the only source on this was "The Bulwark", an organisation Robertson is directly affiliated with. https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/23123079 - Robertson is directly mentioned here https://www.gazeta.ru/army/news/2025/02/12/25073000.shtml - Also directly mentioned here

Happy to concede on all earlier points. Since I received a warning in March I have attempted to make edits to a better level of verification and craft, but this time I made a mistake. I do apologise for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeboRadar (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • To me at least, it seemed clear from the tone and prose of the original Rzeczpospolita article, especially given its discussion of historical grievances between the two countries, and the radio interview in the articles same thread. I am willing to admit that perhaps the one source used was not enough, but this could have been resolved by just adding another, rather than removing the whole paragraph.
    Regarding the term “Banderite”, yes this is a loaded term, which I have not used at all. I included it because it was directly mentioned by Vereshchuk that there were plans to repatriate other nationalist figures such as Konovalets, while the source explicitly mentions that the reburial of Stephan Bandera was not clarified. Given her position in the Office of the Ukrainian President, and generally an official of high office, it seems reasonable to summarise this as “the government”. NeboRadar (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, I can see the issues that my edit may have caused. In the future, I’ll make sure that anything mentioned is clearly verifiable. NeboRadar (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by (username)

Result concerning NeboRadar

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am struggling to parse this filing; the dates and alleged content of the diffs do not line up with anything I can see in them. Joko2468, can you please list any examples of source misuse that post-date the warning in March? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to close this with an informal warning. NeboRadar needs to cite the sources they are using, but the content does not appear to have been original research. I can read the deleted article, but given that they accept the SYNTH issues themselves, and it was before the warning, I don't see it as reasonable to sanction them for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joko2468, I made no mention of which source NeboRadar used, only that the content they added was available in a source. Are you arguing that it was not, ie, that at the point they added it, no reliable source reported a relationship between Melnyk's reburial and Polish government expressions of unhappiness? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will close with an informal reminder unless someone objects in the next day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Contradictions

Tiamut

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tiamut

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
NorthernWinds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, and WP:ASPERSIONS:

  1. 14 May 2026 Implying that people who believe that Jews are an ethnic group are Nazi (this was in response to (אקעגן) who said that Jews are an ethnic group)
  2. 16 May 2026 Accusing GordonGlottal of being anti-Palestinian and denying Palestinians a right to define their own identity during a disagreement.
  3. 23 May 2026 Threatens to make a change against consensus as a retaliation in case a consensus for something she opposes is found
  4. 23 May 2026 Accusing me of making "national claims" for Jews/Israel to Palestine
  5. 25 May 2026 calls my suggestion to split a general list of people from Palestine to specific ethnic groups an assault on Palestinians
  6. 28 May 2026 Accuses me of soapboxing and POV pushing
  7. 1 June 2026 accusing me of selectively reading to support your view that modern Palestinians came from Mars or something

Advocacy and Misusing WP:NPOV:

  1. 6 May 2026 Clarifying that she holds this "Palestinian POV" (As a Palestinian Christian, it seems entirely reasonable to me that I can claim an identitarian affinity to Jesus, and that he would be counted among the historical ancestors of my people.)
  2. 7 May 2026 Saying the Palestinian national opinion should be weighed (the Palestinian collective is not RS). Tiamut eventually yielded that it would not be ideal for the page to reflect the Palestinian national POV but in my opinion later interactions prove that it hasn't completely sunk in that we balance sources, not opinions. For example, she later cited a suggestion being inoffensive to most interested parties as a reason to support it.

Others:

  1. 23 May 2026 Cites my previous objection to a change in a revert that reverted me making that change. Later clarified that she also objects and weirdly implied that the Edomites are Palestinian
  2. 5 May 2026 Initial response an inappropriate edit was to embrace it to Let the reader see how Israelis also try to appropriate Palestinian identity
  3. 1 June 2026 Canvassing (explanation)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on #14 February 2026
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
NorthernWinds's statement contains 713 words and is within 10% of the 700-word limit.
Green tick Extension granted to 700 words.

I have made a few rushed edits at List of Jews in the southern Levant; later I realized they were disruptive. I've acknowledged this and corrected course since. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the fact that Jews are an ethnicity is a very established scholar consensus. It is extremely fringe to say that Jews are not some sort of ethnicity (proof), so the fact that Tiamut calls those who do not follow this fringe theory 'Nazi' is very concerning, and constitutes fringe POV pushing imo.

To Beluga:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
  4. Still a personal comment; substantiating is appreciated but it's the bare minimum.
  5. .
  6. I've already stated I support a unified list for each ethnicity (including Palestinians). What I said was (partially) substantiated previously. Tiamut wasn't asking why Palestinians have to be split across separate pages but why ancient Canaanite rulers cannot share a list page with modern Palestinians. This question was previously discussed in length.
  7. Not an accurate representation; this is a content dispute. I will explain upon request.
  8. No source argued Jesus is part of Palestinian heritage, which Tiamut advocated. This is why a near-unanimous consensus was found for splitting. Tiamut later acknowledged NPOV issues and supported the split.
  9. We rely on sources, not feelings.

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NorthernWinds replied with several paragraphs on the long history of Jews in Palestine imprecise (see Beluga's link). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tiamut reject[s] its application to Palestinians too, but she previously stated Arab is an ethno-linguistic identity that coexists alongisde others and accepted Asians as ethnic groups. The idea that those unconvinced by 18 footnotes This is a content dispute; others agreed, so we split the page. I'll elaborate upon request. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To Tiamut:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. This was a misunderstanding with no wrongdoings. Firstly, I didn't ask people to "consider" the list, but only said "also see". In a chain discussing article names, Tiamut brought up the list in my userspace (this was unrelated). I then asked if she thinks "it's" biased. I was referring to the title but she understood it as referring to the list, hence the strawmanning statement. Looking back, it was just a misunderstanding. Ignoring me when I ask you if you support a split I proposed it; obviously I do.
  4. .
  5. The verification tag is punitive. I have verified the content; here's the response I gave Tiamut. Claims I "used more AI than I admitted" are WP:ASPERSIONS. I haven't blamed Tiamut for anything. Regarding opposition, Katzrockso (who later opposed) stated in the split proposal I have no particular position on if editors want to create other lists (I am sure "List of Jews from Palestine" is a notable topic under WP:NLIST and would survive AfD). The process (regarding creation&split proposal) is explained here; my errors resulted from inexperience.
  6. Confusing the timeline: I edited before you said this.
  7. Only Masalha was cited, and he explicitly supported "Muslim Arab."
  8. False.
  9. .
  10. This information was already in the body and cited there. See explanation.
  11. claiming in the discussion that such an identity does not exist or is not being referred to - False.
  12. Admittedly misplaced sarcasm

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kat Regarding hounding NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was sanctioned for attempted off-wiki canvassing, not behavior. Vanamonde93 Just to clarify, you think evidence 1.1 is more civil content dispute than we usually see in this topic? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paprikaiser إيان - NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EaglesFan37 even after 50 sources, even after conceding her point, she is still arguing with Slava NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1357014081/1357283323


Discussion concerning Tiamut

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Tiamut

Tiamut's statement contains 549 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

The two editors User:NorthernWinds named in her report, and who she alerted to its filing have been following me around (diff #1). Final warning from admin to GordonG following his unsubstantiated ANI report against me (filed as I was compiling a report for AE here). The other editor deleted my message on their talk page asking them to stop (diff #2). Tiamut (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NW's first message on my talk was posted on May 7th, the same day GordonG left me uninvited warning messages, with both their messages pertaining to disputes at List of Palestinians, a page I edited intensely before both of them arrived. Since then, NW has left multiple, messages unrelated to article content and followed me to other articles:

  3. chronic communication problems characterize the interactions between NW and I
  4. she reverts my edits without any discussion, deleting sourced material
  5. removes a tag I added claiming "aspersions", but she admitted to using AI to generate content for that page and I had explained my rationale on talk; she also created the page following a failed split proposal that she opened, participated in, closed, and characterized me alone as to blame when others opposed its creation too while accusing me of OWN behaviour
  6. tell her I am editing elsewhere and need time to respond about the other tag - so, she follows me there (my first edit there was May 27th) starts making several unhelpful edits:
  7. attributing material stated by several scholars to one, and adding "Muslim Arab"
  8. another unexplained deletion of sourced material, under the edit summary "formatting citation"
  9. says she has no problem with sourced info in the lead (other editors supported its inclusion too)
  10. proceeds to delete the same info and sources (could have moved them into the body if placement was the problem)
  11. readds "Muslim Arab" to the geographical-belonging-Palestinian-identity description while claiming in the discussion that such an identity does not exist or is not being referred to
  12. provoking to waste my (and now your) time

To reply to NW's diff 1, my objection to using "ethnic" is universal and I reject its application to Palestinians too (Note the newly EC account I am replying to there has also folowed me from Palestinians to Palestinian Arabic to Al-Maqdisi to Palestinian identity and Talk:Holy Fire! since May 25th). Tiamut (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC) - Follow-up to NW's lastest "proof" Tiamut (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GordonGlottal might not be aware(?) I created the etymology section at Gauze in 2009. Tiamut (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never made an exhaustive list of where Gordon followed me, but I did mention List of Palestinians. He knows I left the article I created because of his attitude there. Respected no boundaries until warned by @User:Nil Einne. Tiamut (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Maltazarian, Several things, but confine myself to: the idea a list about "complicated" Palestine is somehow less complicated/problematic if about Jews there strains credulity. Tiamut (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome an IBAN, but do consider, NW inserted herself on my talk page, opened two AE cases (one "for" me, and one against me), and followed me to multiple articles. My recent engagement on her talk to address an accusation here was a mistake. Tiamut (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree and apologize for my role in feeding the forum. Tiamut (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

  Butterscotch Beluga's statement contains 386 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

1. I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what they said, but still believe Tiamut's commentary was unnecessary here.

2. This was in relation to GordanGlottal disputing that Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas was Palestinian despite reliable sources describing her as such. While Tiamut could've obviously approached this dispute differently, after reading the discussion for context, I wouldn't say that characterization was entirely inaccurate.

3. That's a statement that Tiamut opposed the split & that they see the subsequent rescoping required to separate Jews from Palestine as being segregationist. "opt to" in "opt to re-merge" means "prefer to re-merge", not a threat of action.

4. Tiamut specified 6 minutes after NorthernWinds replied that they were referring to this comment where NorthernWinds repeatedly referred to the scope through a national framing. NorthernWinds even thanked them for substantiating their comment.

5. In context, this reads to me as a broader statement of exasperation over the prolonged dispute over the article rather then a remark against NorthernWinds specifically. The ongoing dispute has repeatedly attempted to scrutinize & categorize Palestinians to a degree I don't think would be warranted for any cultural identity. I'd say that the talk page is an inappropriate place to express such broad frustrations though.

6. This full sentence "This is soapboxing/POV pushing that evades the point regarding the multiple meanings of Palestine." was in response to this comment. When asked why Palestinians have to be split across separate pages, but Jews don't, NorthernWinds replied with several paragraphs on the long history of Jews in Palestine.

7. In reply to quotes referring to the history of the Palestinian identity going back to Roman Palestine that NorthernWinds requested, they focused exclusively on the sentence "There is no way to understand this identity apart from the conflict" & dismissed the rest as inappropriate to cover the historical continuity & removed material cited to it as "fabricated and not in the source".

8. Jesus' characterization as Palestinian had a surplus of sources supporting it, so I don't see what issue NorthernWinds has with Tiamut stating they also hold this belief.

9. It in itself isn't an RS, but if it's a significant perspective it should indeed be considered. To consider something "inoffensive to most interested parties" is the goal of building a consensus. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC) (Rephrased upon asilvering's request) - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I just want to say that none of these diffs can be understood without looking at what went before them and what they refer to. That will usually give a different impression. Mostly they express NorthernWind's frustration at not being able to get their way. Zerotalk 14:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maltazarian

I contemplated whether or not to comment, but I suppose I should since I was extensively involved in the build-up to this AE, when I was trying (and failing, obviously) to facilitate the building of a consensus that addresses the concerns of both NorthernWinds and Tiamut. I'm only going to comment on the list-related matters as that's where I was involved.

I think it's important for the diffs on the list articles/pages to be contextualized. While not an excuse for any potentially uncivil behaviour, it needs to be known that they are part of a long series of exhausting, at times bitter and quite often deadlocked discussions (most to all of: ) that would frustrate most editors. It also didn't help that other editors weren't really able to keep up with NorthernWinds and Tiamut towards the end of C, and that includes myself. Even though it's not wrong for them to simply continue talking to each other, I do feel it ended up having a WP:BLUDGEON-like effect, and with no outside input there wasn't much of a way for the two to stop being at loggerheads.

Comments on individual diffs:

Northernwinds:

3a. I concur with Butterscotch Beluga.

5a. That may not have been directed specifically at the comment by NW that it's indented under; I've noticed Tiamut occasionally puts another comment under her most recent reply in a thread, and they're not always direct replies to the thing her most recent reply was.

7a. Neither user is WP:AGF in that exchange.

1c. This is mostly poor communication exacerbated by the animosity already present on that talk page.

3c. This wasn't the best way to get outside input for the conversation, but I'm sad to see it wasn't taken as an opportunity to invite even more outside input.

Tiamut:

3. Going off my experience this is a very accurate statement (the comment here, not the diff).

4. Tons of reverts were done prior to discussion at the list articles, which isn't unusual.

I find it disheartening that this has gone to AE, but I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry I couldn't help figure something out.
⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paprikaiser:
The splitting proposal, not RfC, was done with the understanding that further discussion on scope was needed post-split. WP:SPLITCLOSE allows involved editors to close split proposals with clear outcomes. The only potential issue with the close was that a week had not yet elapsed, but as nobody in the discussion objected I don't see how this is a big deal; there was a consensus.
The part about inconsistent inclusion criteria leaves out that the origin of the dispute (e.g. ) is disagreement over how the fact Palestine/Palestinian has a complicated history should be handled; in comparison, Jew is relatively uncomplicated. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiamut I wasn't saying a list of Jews from Palestine is less complicated than a general one; I was referring to "List of Palestinians", the subject of the diff linked by Paprikaiser. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GordonGlottal

  • @Vanamonde93 I wasn't planning to weigh in here but it is not true that I was following Tiamut around and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that whatsoever. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde This is complete nonsense. What are you talking about? I edited Gauze before Tiamut ever did, and Golan Heights when Tiamut hadn't edited it in six months (she immediately returned to make a frivolous accusation of "misleading edit summary". I explained to her how i got to Aramaic square script, which is much more my usual kind of page than hers. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @black kite Tiamut has been on wiki much longer than me. So far as I know, tiamut has only accused me of following her to Golan heights and Aramaic square script, and anyone who looks at the edit history for those pages can see that neither is true. Yes vanamonde - I was talking to her on those pages! This is absurd. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paprikaiser

I reviewed the interactions underlying this filing and found conduct concerns by the filer. This filing came shortly after Tiamut indicated her intention to file a case against NorthernWinds, giving rise to retaliatory concerns.

In Talk:List of Palestinians#Splitting proposal, NorthernWinds was involved, !voted, and then closed the discussion in favor of their own !vote's position, citing Near unanimous consensus, although the RfC had only been open for three days and multiple editors had raised scope and criteria concerns. This is the second time NorthernWinds appears to have made an improper close in this CTOP.

After no consensus had been established to split List of people from Palestine (historical region), NorthernWinds created the disputed Jewish list anyway, then argued AfD could pick up where the prior discussion ended. They then told Tiamut that Out of 5 editors, 4 endorsed this page while you opposed it. This is what's called "near-unanimous consensus" and directed her to WP:1AM. But Katzrockso clarified: I did not endorse the creation of this page, I opposed the creation of more ethnic lists, and, when NorthernWinds suggested AfD, asked: Why would you create an article and then propose it be nominated for AfD? That sounds like fait accompli as a no consensus result is likely to result from most contentious discussions in this topic area. NorthernWinds also made rapid title changes and told Tiamut to go for an RM or RfD if those changes were insufficient. They later acknowledged the related renaming was disruptive.

For List of Palestinians, NorthernWinds objected that the Mandate-and-after list had no source on any of the subjects confirming that they identify as Palestinian. But when defining a proposed Jewish-related list, they accepted broader criteria, including Jews born in Palestine, known for being from it, or who made Aliyah, and argued: I don't need RS to define a list that I am making. This shows inconsistent inclusion-criteria standards.

Regarding aspersions/WP:AGF, NorthernWinds warned إيان after a disagreement, saying: Please stop implying bias, or else this ""POV"" of yours about WP:PA will unfortunately be taken by someone to AE. In the same exchange, إيان objected to the double standard: if I use the word "POV" it's an "accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence," [...] but if you use the word "POV", it's "in a literal sense". This is part of a broader pattern in the List of Palestinians and related discussions, where NorthernWinds personalized disputes and warned others over conduct framing that they also used themselves. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NorthernWinds points out that the initial wording to إيان was later struck, but my concern remains with the initial framing and the broader pattern (e.g., ). Paprikaiser (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EaglesFan37

Even in the middle of this AE case, the dispute between NorthernWinds and Tiamut has continued unraveling. . This has been going on, by the looks of it, for nearly a month at this point. Outside of a two-way WP:IBAN, I'm not exactly sure how this gets resolved. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthernWinds None of those diffs help your case much. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Slava570

Hi, that I am aware of this is my first time ever dealing with Tiamut. I got into a discussion with them on NorthernWinds's talk page. The discussion was about what I consider their fringe view that Jews are not an ethnic group. In response to my (I think) reasonable comment about Hebrew being a lingua franca they responded saying that I was "defensive" because "my identity narrative [was] being questioned." (I had said nothing about my identity up to this point). I responded saying they should not bring that up . They said if I don't like their responses I'm "free to disengage" . Then I replied saying they should not write off my comments because of my identity, citing WP:PARTISANS After that, the conversation basically went back on track for a while, and we ended up discussing some sources. However, the sources they provided in no way backed up their claim that Jews are not an ethnicity. I maintain that this is a fringe view. I realize the sanction sought here is PIA, but in my opinion, unless they walk back this view, I believe they should not be editing articles related to Jews and Judaism, as this shows a basic lack of understanding of the topic. Slava570 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tiamut

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I believe the first six (at least) are Tiamut's evidence to support their claim that NW has been following them to articles. Tiamut, some more commentary on each diff would definitely be good. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butterscotch Beluga, can you rephrase your statements so that they're speaking "to the room" and not to anyone in specific, that is, with clear reference to NW/Tiamut instead of "you"? Thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, it's not just Tiamut that's incredibly unimpressed with this newly-EC editor so far, i.e. User_talk:ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen#Not_necessary. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this report was filed; this is a more civil content dispute than we usually see in this topic, with some genuine progress toward consensus. I have read through the entire talk page of List of people from Palestine (historical region). I don't find the behavior there sanctionable, and of the two principles here NorthernWinds is the worse offender in terms of jumping to conclusions in bad faith. However, the two users are not arriving here with equally clean hands: NorthernWinds has a previous site ban and PIA TBAN. I am reluctant to reinstate/expand the TBAN, since the discussion here for the most part has been civil, but I would consider a BER, as these two editors are clearly frustrated with each other.
    Separately I am convinced by the evidence that GordonGlottal and אקעגן are following Tiamut around. GordonGlottal was recently told off for frivolous accusations, and אקעגן has AE blocks from two years ago. I'm undecided on what the appropriate response to this would be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    GordonGlottal, please comment in your own section, not in the admin section. Since you are here, can you offer an explanation for how you have, on six different occasions this year, come to edit a disputed page or participate in a discussion on pages you have not previously edited, directly after Tiamut did? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • GordonGlottal You say that it is not true that I was following Tiamut around and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that whatsoever; however, as you can see from this, you and Tiamut share 41 article and talk space pages, of which Tiamut edited 35 of them before you. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read through the discussion on NorthernWinds's talk page. I do not see views expressed there that are so abhorrent as to require removal from a topic; the argument falls within reasonable interpretation of the sources linked. That said, it is deep into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and I would remind both Tiamut and NorthernWinds that Wikipedia is not the place for generic disputes about, for example, Jewish ethnicity. Discussion must be limited to improving our articles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    of which many were edited within hours of Tiamut's first edits, and many were direct modifications of Tiamut's previous contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bananakingler

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CuckooCorey

Patrick.N.L

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Patrick.N.L

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Patrick.N.L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5 June Immediately after previous temp block due to edit warring, immediately starts again
  2. 5 June 5 June 5 June Reposts same arguments attempting to justify inclusion in two article talk pages, a user page, and blocking admin’s user talk pages WP:IDHT

Was told by previous blocking admin to just reuse last diffs (as those diffs aren’t even 5 days old) This is copy-pasted from last report

  1. 29 May 2026 Long WP:forum post on Talk:Gaza Genocide assailing wikipedia for ideological bias
  2. 29 May 2026 Breaks long-standing RFC consensus unilaterally and is warned and asked that they cannot break enforced BRD
  3. 30 May 2026 Reverts Butterscotch after being told of enforced BRD
  4. 30 May 2026 Inserts the exact same contested text to Gaza Genocide Denial

Also likely gamed for 500 edits

  • Most edits are about the Israel Palestine conflict, dating back to 2007, likely preceding the establishment of WP:ARBECR
  • 6 May 2022 148 edits in the span of less than an hour
  • 25 edits in less than an hour.
  • , edits before 500 after imposition of WP:ARBECR in 2022 skirting rules to enter into the topic area.
  • Indeed gaming check tool seems to indicate massive amount of edits in a short time period around 2022, and revisions 250 to 450 are small edits corresponding to that time period.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 30 May 31 hour block for the diffs


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
  • also alerted by Doug Weller 28 March 2022
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

editor is WP:NOTHERE, speedrunning back to edit war across multiple articles right after being admonished is fairly frustrating.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Patrick.N.L

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Patrick.N.L

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Patrick.N.L

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"